Archive for October, 2009
To Reveal a Product’s True Cost An Environmental Tax?
October 16th, 2009 | 
Author:
To Reveal a Product’s True Cost An Environmental Tax?
Sometimes, simple acts such as going to the grocery store can turn into a moral dilemma. Is it better to choose the piece of organic fruit produced on the other side of the country or the non-organic version grown locally, 50 miles away? Are the benefits of chemical-free shampoo worth an extra 5 bucks a bottle? Will I really be able to enjoy a cheap chocolate bar knowing that the growers of the cocoa beans were likely not fairly compensated?
As much as I’d like to say that I always buy the product that is environmentally safe and sustainably produced, in reality, that’s not always the case. First, the sheer amount of information required to be able to distinguish between products is staggering. You need facts regarding environmental impact, transportation costs, and fair trade practices, to name just a few. And there are plenty of misinformation and greenwashing campaigns out there to steer you in the wrong direction.
Second, of course, there are times when the high cost of an ethically made product turns me off from buying it. Even consumers with the best of intentions have their breaking points.
The thing is, companies who go out of their way to implement sustainable practices endure a greater cost of production. Sure, they can sometimes capitalize on this by marketing to conscientious consumers who are willing to pay a bit more, but the fact remains that in today’s system, environmentally minded production is punished.
On the other hand, companies who move their factories (and jobs) to developing countries with lax environmental standards and cheap labor are able to make products at a fraction of the cost and undercut their competitors (while shipping materials and finished goods all around the world and adding to our greenhouse gas problems).
The way it’s set up, high environmental standards in one country drive companies to relocate in places where it’s permissible to pollute in order to compete in the marketplace. Chaco, the Colorado-based athletic sandal company, is a prime example of even a well-intentioned company being forced to follow suit to maintain competitive pricing on their products. In fact, 95% of all footwear in the world is produced in China, whose poor environmental regulation and sometimes dangerous environmental problems are well known.
With current talk about cap and trade emissions programs, this phenomenon may only get worse.
So how do we even the playing field and reward companies for good business practices?
When I think about this problem, I keep coming back to an idea I encountered in a casual conversation with a stranger while traveling. I can’t remember his face or his name, but his idea has stuck with me and festered in my mind for the better part of a year. His take was that putting the financial burden of environmental responsibility on the companies just doesn’t make sense for the reasons I’ve given above. In a global marketplace, it renders companies less competitive than those that operate free of environmental and labor regulations.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to put an “environmental impact” or “ecological footprint” tax on the product itself?
Ugh, a tax?
Initially, I didn’t warm to the idea either. But think about it: adding a tax proportionate to a product’s ecological and social footprint eliminates the cost advantage of irresponsible production. All those environmental costs that are currently not included in our economic system would be factored in and would increase the price of unsustainably made products.
This, in turn, would make moral dilemmas at the grocery store much easier. Is it more sustainable to buy distant, organic produce or local, non-organic produce? The tax-adjusted pricing should inform my decision. Can I afford the chemical-free shampoo? Yes, because the price of its chemical-laden competitors would be raised through the environmental impact tax and eliminate the cost advantage of choosing that product.
The money raised from the tax could fund its implementation and other sustainable programs such as public transportation (high speed rail, anyone?) and alternative energy. Perhaps it could even make a dent in our gaping budget deficit.
Won’t this cost me money?
You may be thinking, “Sure, that’s a good idea in concept, but that will raise my bills – grocery, clothes, everything.” Well, yes, that’s true. But maybe if we see the true cost of the products we casually consume, we can make a more informed decision about what is really necessary to our lives.
Additionally, programs such as this often have the greatest impact on the poor. But this could be compensated for by using some of the tax revenue for need-based assistance programs.
Regardless, running an economic system on the assumption of infinite resources is fundamentally flawed. Currently, environmental impacts such as air pollution, water pollution, and deforestation are not factored into the cost of a product: they are considered “externalities.”
These costs need to be included in the system in a way that does not punish those who engage in sustainable business practices. By taxing a product’s environmental impact, it levels the playing field for the consumer.
Disclaimer
Of course, I am not an economist or policy guru. I don’t know how to implement such a tax or if it would even be possible (though compared to creating a carbon trading market, perhaps it’s not that difficult). This is only the musing of a concerned, intelligent citizen trying to brainstorm ways to make our economic system fit within the bounds of our ecological constraints.
What do you think? Would such a tax have a beneficial effect on our production system? Join the conversation over at our website!
Jill Mueller is a conservation biologist, avid cyclist, and freelance writer. She has combined forces with a good friend and dietitian to start The Barefoot Badger, a blog promoting healthy, sustainable living. Check us out!
Lupe Fiasco – “Solar Midnite” (From The Twilight Saga: New Moon … Lupe Fiasco – â??Solar Midniteâ?. AUDIO By TC on October 16, 2009 at 1:53 pm. lupe-fiasco. I remember looking over the preliminary tracklist for the The Twilight Saga: New Moon soundtrack and thinking how big it would be for a Hip-Hop … Pakistan looks to grow solar energy resources with Suntech … China’s crystalline silicon PV module manufacturer plans to collaborate with public and private sector companies to help meet the country’s energy shortage. TG Daily – NASA finds 'space ribbon' at solar system's edge As the solar wind reaches the edge of the solar system and collides with the interstellar medium, a shock wave forms, heating particles which then stream away from the boundary. High energy cosmic rays passing the boundary of the solar … Thin, flexible solar paneling – Springwise There’s no doubt solar energy is a compelling alternative to fossil fuels, but implementing it has traditionally meant installing the standard, costly and ungainly solar panel. SRS Energy’s dual-purpose roof tiles offer one way to get … Nah Right » Lupe Fiasco – Solar Midnite Solar Midnite is my first commercial release that I actually produced as well as wrote. The New Moon team asked me if I could do a song specifically for the film. They invited me to an early screening of the unfinished film from which I …The Story of Eco Radio
Posted in 
Chek Technology Inc.
Sure, this is a little messier than the easier, disposable version. However, do you even realize the amount of disposable diapers that are filling landfills?? Cloth diapers are a choice that every mother should seriously consider. Let’s look at some facts that are quite alarming… Disposable Diapers Sobering Facts: * from birth to about 2-1/2 the average child will go through about 7,300 diapers * the cost for that is about $2600 * 18 billion diapers enter landfills each year * disposable diapers make up about 3.4 million tons of trash * health risks such as fertility issues in males, eyes, nose and throat issues and even asthma-like symptoms have been connected to disposable diapers! * long term negative affects on animal and water life. * the chemicals that make disposable diapers white increase the risk of cancer * affect development * they use more water. yep. you may need to wash cloth diapers, however, way more water is used making disposable diapers! * a study, conducted by Anderson Laboratories in 1999 and published in the Archives of Environmental Health, found that disposable diapers release chemicals called volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene and dipentene. They have been shown to have toxic health effects, such as cancer and brain damage, when used over time or high exposure. * they use 1.3 million tons of wood pulp. that’s about 1/4 million trees every year. * they take up to 500 years to break down. * more viruses than you want to know about…including polio, survive for two weeks or more after disposed of. There are many many many more reasons to avoid disposable diapers. However, I think our readers are intelligent and the above information is enough to get you thinking! Research for yourself. You will be shocked! Go for organic natural reusable cloth diapers. You will not only be helping the environment and saving money, you will also protect your sweet precious love bugs from harm! Copyright © Green Christian Network, All Rights Reserved About the Author: Cindy Taylor is a Christian stay at home Mom who love the Lord and cares about God’s planet. You can see her passion and writing at her website, Green Christian Network (http://greenchristiannetwork.com).
Chek Technology Inc.
Green Tip – Moms Use Clothe Diapers
Economics of Solar
For some time now, the extremely destructive Pine Beetle ( Dendroctonus ponderosae ) is ravaging huge areas of Canada’s forestlands and its destruction is so virulent, that it is leaving massive and easily visible scars across otherwise green foliage landscapes. In numerous areas where the pine beetle is active, various solutions for its eradication have been tried and some of these in themselves, are so toxic in nature that they would normally be classed as being a larger risk than the beetle they are attempting to destroy. These beetles have an average life span of about one year and generally, their eggs are laid through the bark of a tree where they develop into larvae that stay under the bark all through the winter months. During the spring the larvae continue to feed under the bark and then they will change into pupae during the months of June and July. During the rest of the summer and into fall, the new adult pine beetles leave the infested tree through emergence holes they create and after drying themselves in the warm sunshine, they take off to mate and commence a new cycle by laying the next generation’s eggs under the bark of new trees. During the time they remain under the bark of a tree, they are known to transmit a fungus type substance that stains the sapwood of the tree a blue colour. Other than discoloration, this blue colouring appears to have no adverse affects on the actual structural integrity of the tree. However, we must not forget that the damage has already been done and like a rolling snowball, it gather momentum and range of spread with each summer that comes. These beetles prefer mature trees such as lodge pole pines which are considered mature after eighty years of growth and in the Province of British Columbia, current statistics show that there are three times more mature lodge pole pines than they had over ninety years ago. Hot and dry summers make the trees more stressed and thus more susceptible to attack and infestation by this ravenous little creature. Trees which have been attacked will turn red roughly one year after the infestation and then, between one and two years later the affected trees will turn grey and all of their needles will fall off. Another interesting fact about these little guys is they do not like it too cold! Their eggs, larvae and pupae are very susceptible to very cold temperatures and if these temperatures remain below minus 35 Celsius for a prolonged period of maybe a week, then this will kill off the eggs, larvae, pupae and generally sizeable portions of the beetle population in that area of cold weather. This being said, unless we suddenly enter the start of a new ice age all across Canada, these sporadic cold spells are unfortunately not enough to rid us of this continually spreading plague of destruction. Yes, there are action plans prepared and in place and yes, the Canadian Ministry of Forests and Range are really trying to get to grips with finding a solution to this costly problem but to date, the efforts and methodology being used has had little or no effect on the overall problem. The good news is that an answer to this massive problem does exist and better still, it is an answer, which consists of no chemicals, no toxins, no poisons and no danger to either the forest or to the people who would apply the solution. This answer can be found right now in the form of a golden all natural organic fluid formulated around a cedar oil base. This fluid can totally eradicate the pine beetle and a few other nasty insects at the same time. It is not cheap but then again it is not as expensive as some of the other treatment that have been tried. It is non hazardous and will not harm the environment in any way and it is here and available right now. Unfortunately, for now it appears that here it must stay as the Ministry of Forests and Range are continuing their quest with what they feel they know best. Maybe someday, hopefully soon, they will realize that we can defeat this natural pest by using a totally natural substance. Bob Littlejohn MBA BSc
Economics of Solar
The Canada Pine Beetle
Ban Or Save the Plastic Bag?
Ban Or Save the Plastic Bag?
As part of the conservation and environmental movement worldwide there are several campaigns aimed at banning the plastic bag. These fit in perfectly with going green at home and with our longer term life styles.
A quick search on the web will take you to the San Francisco Bay Area, “Bay vs Bag”, to the Daily Mail’s (UK) “Banish the Bags” as well as similar situations in Canada, Holland, China, elsewhere in the US and even Zanzibar.
A lot of the focus is based on the damage done to wild life, including sea mammals and birds; the effects on waste and the average number of bags used per person in different countries. In one of the lists I saw, Singapore was topping the list at 625 bags.
One of the targets is to reduce by 10% the yearly consumption of these bags.
On the other hand there are also “Save the Plastic Bag” campaigns, with the plastic industry behind it. Their main focus is highlighting what they call misinformation. Their points are based on “exaggerations” on the damage done to wild life; errors in how plastic bags are made (from ethane gas that would otherwise be burnt and not petroleum); effects of co2 vs methane; potential job losses and so on.
On the banning side of the argument, there can be exaggerations as well as questionable scientific data – questionable as in anybody can question it, after all to have an argument you must always have at least two points of view.
From the “saving” the industry point of view, there can be many counter arguments to the data that is presented. And this is quite understandable, after all their industry could be hit very badly. (This just reminds me that all businesses have a life time curve that goes from birth, to growth, to maturity and finally to demise. The time scale can be as short as a year to as long as a hundred years or more, but the end result is that it is replaced by something else).
Some of the arguments are saying that nets and not plastic bags are causing marine life casualties, that paper bags are a worse alternative (side stepping the plastic bag issue) and basically attacking the “plastic bag misinformation campaign”.
Very probably both sides are looking to make their points by reducing or ridiculing their opponents point of view. But the overall issue is still there – are plastic bags affecting our environment?
To get back to the plastic bag banning situation, where paper bags have the negative effect of more trees cut, the information that is being retrieved is very important. But it must also be as objective as possible. Having said that, we know that it takes literally centuries for plastic to degrade and this should be the foremost argument.
Just to expand a little on the paper bag argument, which is totally reasonable, the option is not to cut more trees. The options are to recycle and use bio-degradable alternatives.
In the old days, when plastic bags hadn’t been invented but grocery shops had, natural fiber bags were used and the customers were the ones who brought their own to the shop.
With just a little effort on the individual front, these campaigns wouldn’t be necessary.
Want to know about environment and natural living? Information, news and facts can be found at: http://natural-living-tips.com/
World's first commercial application of DSSC solar technology is … G24i has sent the first commercial shipment of its dye-sensitized solar cells to a bag-maker in Hong Kong for use in backpacks and handbags. DSSCs… Inhabitat » Team California's Refract House Currently Leading … A Green Design Blog, Sustainable Design Blog, Future-forward design for the world you inhabit – your daily source for innovations in sustainable architecture and green design for the home. Future German government to cut subsidies for solar, other … Germany’s next government is considering slashing subsidies to renewable energy industries, particularly solar, an energy expert with Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats said Tuesday. LG's Solar Cell e-Book goes an extra day for every 5 hours of sunlight LG’s showing off its Solar Cell e-Book reader anyway, in a bid to flex its thin-film solar muscle. The prototype features an energy conversion efficiency of about 9.6 percent giving it an extra day’s worth of power from that 6-inch … Canadian Solar Says Q3 Shipments Topped Guidance – Tech Trader … Canadian Solar (CSIQ) this afternoon said it now sees Q3 shipments of 101 MW to 103 MW, ahead of previous guidance of 90 MW to 100 MW. The company also said it expects to report revenue for the quarter of $210 million to $215 million, …sea power technology
Green Tip – Buy Used
Green Tip – Buy Used
A lot goes into making new products; energy, fuel, non organic materials and more. If we buy more items used, we will use less of the things that contribute to hurting God’s planet. Plus, we are being good stewards by making the most of everything we buy and use!
Some things we can buy used:
* movies. what’s the difference, really. used is cheaper, the same and better for the planet.
* music. see above.
* clothes. thrift stores can save you tons of money as well.
* books. buy them used or go to the library.
* cars. how used is up to you.
* furniture and appliances. garage sales and eBay are great places to start.
* homes. old houses are cool anyway.
* household items. there are many items you can pick up at a local good will or garage sale that are just as nice as going to the store and buying new.
* electronics. just be careful and always try it our before you buy.
* bikes. have you ever seen the price tag for a new bike recently. yikes! buy used and ride the bike as often as you can instead of driving. Double green for your trouble! lol.
* video games and systems. places like game stop are great. you can buy used, beat the game and then trade it in for another used game. too cool, right?
* toys. obviously clean and good condition are key here. if you look you can find some goodies. i have found a lot of cute items that my kids love.
As you can see, there are many ways we can help contribute to being good stewards of God’s planet. Including, buying used and spending our money wisely!
Copyright © Green Christian Network, All Rights Reserved
About the Author: Cindy Taylor is a Christian stay at home Mom who love the Lord and cares about God’s planet. You can see her passion and writing at her website, Green Christian Network (http://greenchristiannetwork.com).
Fox Business News
New 3 R’s
New 3 R’s
I was back in the grocery store this Saturday, but it was not the prices (although I did manage to keep it under ninety pounds once again) that caught my eye or even what other people were buying. In fact, what I noticed this Saturday did not happen until I was home and unpacking my weekly shopping. What I noticed was the amount of packaging, most of it useless, that I put into the bin. Of course, we have been using our green bags for over a year now so we are not throwing very many plastic ones away. Well, in fact we don’t really throw any away, because we try to follow the adage…Reduce, re-use, re-cycle. I want to look at how the 3 R’s of reduce, re-use, recycle fits into all of the Frugal Fam core values.
Family first. Since we are our children’s first and best teachers, I think that the time we invest in teaching them about all things environmental is an excellent investment in our futures and theirs. Isn’t it ironic that reduce, re-use, recycle could become the new 3 R’s. In fact so I don’t wear out my fingers re-typing it all over and over again, let’s us that term in the rest of the article to refer to reduce, re-use, recycle. It is never too early to begin either. At three, my daughter knows the difference between the bin and the recycle bag (sometimes better than my eighteen year old).
Saving money. In fact, in the UK most councils offer free recycling facilities to all residents, which means that recycling costs us nothing. There are examples too of how recycling can actually save you money though, such as my wormary, which produces organic liquid fertiliser and compost or reducing your energy consumption by turning down the thermostat. And as I have shown in past post about Freecycle, charity shops and similar services, you can save a great deal of money by re-using items that someone else may no long need.
But in the USA recycling too can actually pay money. Although not as easy for many American families to place bags or special bins on the stoop (although some forward thinking counties and cities are offering curb-side recycling as in the UK), the profit from this activity can be used to fund extras or meet essential obligations. Before I left Los Angeles in 2006, there were increasingly mini-recycling centres often in the parking lots of grocery stores. Families could take their paper, metal and plastic products and turn them into paper…paper money that is. In some ways this is more incentive to recycle than the UK system. What if your family could pay for its holiday through recycling? Perhaps even clean up your street? I know that my three years old loves helping me to pick up trash in her park. Could your family do something similar?
Environmentally friendly. Like I said, the 3 R’s are among the basics of environmentally friendly. It is one of the easiest things that we can all do to save this special planet for our children and grand-children. Alright, we have all heard the pundits talk about how recycling does not make a difference. So to clear up a few of those myths:
- Enough energy is saved by recycling one aluminium can to run a TV set for three hours.
- A steel mill which uses recycled scrap reduces related water pollution, air pollution, and mining wastes by at least 70 percent.
- Creating one ton of recycled paper uses only about 60 percent of the energy needed to make a ton of virgin paper.
- Seventeen trees are saved for each ton of recycled newspaper.
- Recycling steel and tin cans saves 74 percent of the energy necessary to produce them.
- Today most bottles and jars contain at least 25 percent recycled glass.
Healthy living. It may not be immediately obvious how the 3 R’s can make you healthier, but I have a couple of examples:
- Reduce your carbon footprint by walking to school, the store and anywhere else you can…also increases the amount of exercise you are getting. Walking is actually one of the best exercises there is.
- Eating fresher often means that there is less packaging as frozen, tinned and jarred products, which produce more waste also, are likely to have more added salts, sugars and preservatives.
- Reducing the carbon miles of your food by growing your own fruits and vegetables also allows you to grow them organically as well as having the benefit of reducing your stress through the pleasurable hobby of gardening.
Now that we have talked about how the 3R’s of reduce, re-use and recycle keep with the Frugal Fam core values, I hope that each of you will join me in this journey and share your ideas for Reduce, Re-use, Recycle.
Terri O’Neale is the mother of six; ranging in age from 3 to 22. She has been both a working and stay-at-home mother at various times in her life. She was also a single mother for almost five years, before re-marrying the love of her life at the age of forty. Obviously, she has a life-time of training in raising a family on a tight budget. In addition to these real life experiences, she possesses a bachelors degree in health education and a minored in environmental management in her masters programme.
Terri feels strongly that this is one of the most challenging times in history for the family, but she also believes that families with the will and resolve to address the pressing issues of saving money, becoming greener, leading healthier lifestyles and spending more time with one another can endure these challenging times and come out victorious in the end.
Through Frugal Family articles, blogs, videos and social networking, she helps modern families rediscover some lost art forms such as cooking, sewing, and gardening. The goal is not to go back in time or become fanatical, but to help all families find simple and effective ways that fit into their lifestyle to make moderate changes with huge impacts. For more information, check out her blog http://frugalfam.wordpress.com/.
Your Green Life Segment Of Sun Light